Sunday, May 14, 2017

Will screwing sexbots screw us?

The Sexbot Revolution (it’s happening), in conjunction with the introduction of the male Pill, will upend the sexual market and bring chaos to long-established and evolved implicit rules of conduct. The biggest impact will be a reduction in the asking price of women (in normie terms: a lot of sub-hottie women will have to date below their league if they don’t want to be alone). Sexbots, and other realistic simulacra of sex with a hot woman, will occupy the attention and, ahem, energy of a mass of omega and beta males who will prefer the intense experience of release with their Minka Kelly lookalike bots over uninspiring sex with the human plain janes and fatties who would normally be their lot.

It's not inconceivable, though, that the development instead turns out to be a saving grace, putting the West's native stock back on the path to replacement fertility. Here's how it might look.

Not only is the female asking price reduced by what amounts to an almost infinite supply of real women plus their artificial fleshpot lookalikes, men--all men, no matter their level of attractiveness--experience a genuine increase in desirability in the eyes of women by way of of an across-the-board leveling up of men's abundance mentality.

This could be disastrous:

On the other hand, the assumption here is that given unlimited access, men would take it easy, a la "civilization is men's attempt to impress women". That's a rather gynocentric spin on a quip whose scope is sufficiently larger: "Civilization is men's attempt to acquire dominance" (one major benefit of which is access to women).

Genghis Khan was no slouch. He spread his seed far and wide but he didn't actually spend much time getting women to spread their legs. Cut out the courtship--even its most expedited, maximally efficient manifestation, tight Game--and there's a lot of time leftover for other things. Top athletes, rockstars, and other celebrities don't have to expend much effort getting laid by groupies who throw themselves at said natural alphas.

The sexbot revolution doesn't require men to date robots, it just makes jacking off indistinguishable from the real deal.

The modal man doesn't actually want to have sex more than a few times a day. Futurama, again:

Sexbots are the simulacrums that allow beta men to stop being solemn suckers.

Women are no longer the gatekeepers of sex, but that doesn't have anything to do with procreation per se. In the modern West, the separation of procreation and fornication happened half a century ago. We're already a couple generations into that.

Throughout most of human history, natural selection favored fornication. Procreation was a seemingly inseparable consequence. Now they are not only separable but are actually largely separate.

We have a situation now where most women who want to procreate can do so (though many of the men they'd like to procreate with don't want to procreate with them), some men who want to procreate can do so (though many are limited in who they are able to procreate with by the dynamics of the sexual market ), and some men who want to procreate cannot.

By lowering the female asking price and boosting all men's desirability, many men who desired procreation but were denied it on account of their inability to fornicate in a world where women were the sexual gatekeepers now find themselves able to have children. Women who want to procreate but who were holding out for a man beyond their reach now see a wider pool of men as desirable on account of fewer men being desperate.

In short, we're already well past the point where the desire to have children is the primary limiting factor on Western fertility. Sexual market dynamics, however, preclude some people--mostly but not exclusively men--who desire children from having them. The sexbot revolution allows many of those who were precluded to get into the game without throwing anyone else out of it (and possibly making alpha men who are on the fence about fathering children more willing to do so on account of being able to continue to enjoy sexual variety both by way of the sexbot option and also a presumed further reduction in the social sanction that accompanies male infidelity).

An increase in fecundity results.

An open question that I didn't address is how sexbots will be viewed inside the confines of a monogamous relationship. Can a man cheat with a sexbot anymore than he 'cheats' when he masturbates?

28 comments:

Conker
said...

I know Roissy has been saying for a while that the sexbot revolution would be earth-shattering but I think it would just be another "step" in electronic entertainment. There was a post on Heartiste a while ago about a sexbot being produced now which is basically a mannequin covering a simple repetitive lever machine that was supposed to simulate a blowjob but outside of a few hobbyists its not very appealing. I think the real revolution will come when AI more closely resembles AI from science fiction but, at least publicly, robot AI hasn't seemed to have progressed beyond Deep Blue the chess-playing robot. So even when robots do have an AI that allows them to learn new motor skills and adapt to social situations, I still don't think it will have as big an impact as Roissy thinks. Electronic entertainment has changed social interactions but despite the naysayers I still don't think society has been disastrously effected by it. Perhaps for the worse but I don't think its a catastrophe. I think simple sexbots would be seen as an oddity, and may even come in a unisex model so both partners could enjoy it at the same time or separately. How that affects relationships would be anyone's guess. But I think if AI were to develop behaviours that would simulate "love", then I could see men and women becoming extremely jealous, resulting in scenes like the industrial revolution where men smashed automatic looms in factories. Although you could program AI not to develop those simulated feelings, it wouldn't be too difficult for a black market to develop that simulates all kinds of "love" programs for sexbots. However, if sexbots were to develop human behaviour that closely then I actually think that would be offputting for most people, and would be similar to why I think virtual reality hasn't been as popular as it was hoped to be despite all its potential. Saying that, for me personally, that idea of having to clean my gunk out of a sexbot puts me off the whole idea of a sexbot altogether. So if sexbots were to become popular, they may end up becoming more popular with women since there would be less cleaning, so men would get screwed in the sex market yet again.

I agree-I don't see sexbots doing much at all to the sexual market that hasn't already been done. They are the Segway of today.

I, and just about every man alive, have seen more naked women than any other man that lived up to perhaps thirty years ago. I can see two hundred beautiful women in ten minutes just by looking at my computer (and I have, several times). I've seen more beautiful naked women than the most powerful king, than the most charismatic movie star, and best baseball player that ever lived, until about 1990. And you have too.

That had its impact on the sexual market, whatever it was. Being able to hump an attractive rubber mannequin isn't going to do anything different.

I also find it difficult to envisage a sexbot revolution devaluing women any more than unlimited free pornography already has (assuming it actually has). Perhaps it will force real prostitutes to lower their prices.

Speaking of which, surely the much greater threat to prostitutes is the increasing willingness of women in recent decades to give it up for free. That is a trend that began well before the age of internet porn.

I've always wanted to see women naked, but I ain't no robosexual. No sir.

From where I stand (man, long-married, monogamous, and from my POV rather happy) I see sex (physical intimacy) as THE means to emotional intimacy (and the trust, loyalty and devotion that form the bedrock on which a family is built.)

I see legions of people habituated to casual sex without emotional commitment, so I'm far from surprised that in this time of unprecedented material wealth, so many people are lonely and miserable. The typical man or woman "with options" spends 16 or 18 through 28 or 35 habituating to sex without emotional attachment, so when they suddenly deem it time to settle down, they are actually UNABLE to reconnect the two. Too much detritus in the attic---every intimacy with their spouse evokes a dozen memories, all with rose-colored glasses, of hotter, tighter, crazier times they had with someone else.

Yeah, that's a path to marital bliss. (idiots.)

So the domino game of modern marriage and family ensues, yielding short-lived families, then blended families and ultimately UNSUCCESSFUL families and their sad-sack offspring.

Porn & casual sex are vices. They are impulsive-minded short-cuts to dopamine highs, absolutely no less self-destructive than spending weekends popping oxycodone or smoking heroin. People who are addicted to the shortcut are like fatties who think taking the power chair to the mountain peak makes them "athletic." Only in this case, instead of fat slobs, the activity embeds utter misery on a lifelong basis...and yields a society of broken people.

When I get old my wife will be there to help me (and I her.) We have kids and grandkids who will be there for us as we are for them. Surrounding us will be tens of millions of booze-addled, drug-addicted shut-ins who listened to the demons surrounding them and did with all the other idiots did, never giving one thought to where it all leads. Or maybe most of those long-divorced, three-marriage-losers will be long dead, since we know for certain that loneliness and living alone are as big a risk-factors for early death as is obesity alone.

Never have people existed in a world that so encourages self-destruction.

As technologically-enabled pseudo-life becomes more available (sexbots, VR), the premium of having REAL life will grow dramatically.

You want to see alpha? REAL is where it's at. Real mountains climbed. Real stories to tell. A real woman courted, married, with whom you discovered the true joys of sex, with whom you made kids, with whom you raised them and nurtured them yourself (instead of farming it all out while mommy & daddy go to work to pay taxes.)

As more people get sucked into a black hole of self-destruction, the value of being one who doesn't rises exponentially. Maybe this is all a prelude to a massive die-off during which all the "short-cut" people discover they're ill-equipped when reality re-intrudes on their little bubbles.

Look around. We can already easily identify those whose tech-amplified vices are dragging them into dopamine-addled endless loops. Like millions before them, they will not leave descendants and their willingness to let impulsivity guide their actions should rapidly be bred out of our race. Just in this case, such people should have a little spinning hourglass tattooed on their foreheads.

The question is at what point--if ever--simulated sex 'feels' like real sex. Real sex involves all five senses. The 'best' porn is currently only able to engage two of the senses (sight and sound). Video was an 'improvement' over pictures in magazines because it added another sense. Sexbots will engage at least three (and maybe all five), including touch, the most 'important' sense of all.

I use the quotes because I'm sympathetic to dc.sunsets (in a happy, healthy monogamous relationship with my wife and our two kids, I don't watch porn, etc).

We're no more psychologically evolved to handle modern sexual stimuluses than we are to handle sedentary lifestyles or the addictive mix of fat, salt, and sugar in so much of the contemporary Western diet. Some people are able to leverage what's available to achieve more than they could have otherwise dreamed of, but most cannot and are worse for than wear in trying.

I wish I could shed my caring about the big picture, but anyone who has kids (and cares about them) must concern himself with what happens in the wider world. We're all nauseous in familiarity with the many cross-linked contributors to evolving Idiocracy, but so far, outside of mostly people motivated by religious beliefs, there seems too little appreciation for the saturation of our lives with sex, sex, sex.

I'm old enough to recall when tampon commercials began. Now we have boner pills advertised on The Disney Channel during Mickey's Playhouse (I exaggerate, but only a little.) Casual sex is portrayed 24 hours a day on TV, and its context is uniformly benign when it's not celebratory (esp. if the people involved are the same sex.) Comedy programs routinely crack wise about masturbation (getting extra points for invoking more than one euphemism for the act) and it's common to have children's characters well below ten years of age participate in sexually-charged dialog.

This is a vast experiment. Savages live their lives in public; they eat, sleep, defecate and copulate in, for all practical purposes, public. By every measure it appears Western Civ is heading straight back to that condition, undoing in a few decades what required thousands of years to build. A couple wishing to shield their child from this until a less tender age would have no choice but to move off-grid to a Randy-Weaver-esque cabin bereft of electricity (for there is almost nowhere now in North America that lacks a cellular signal.) Kids in my wife's 4th grade classroom have "smartphones," and we all know the first thing both boys and girls look up as soon as no adults are present. The kids are smart enough to understand how to wipe their surfing history. The girls then learn how they're supposed to ACT, and the boys all learn what they're supposed to EXPECT, based on not just fiction, but the most perverse fiction dreamed by sick minds. Let's face it, most teens now probably think anal intercourse is NORMAL (and not the microbiologically horrifying pathogenic cocktail it really is.)

I cannot agree with you, EP, more when you note how astonishingly incapable we are when navigating all this. We cannot handle (across too many areas to note) as individuals what our innovators-in-concert hand us. I actually wonder if the valley of hardship ahead will be too harsh for my descendants to survive, so mismatched are we for the Future Shock Tsunami building within our society. We are still (biologically) but one moment away from savages in the jungle, but the collaboration of innovators, amplified by written language and then vast communication networks, has given us dozens of ways by which we can destroy ourselves mentally, emotionally and physically.

This is an antebellum period; I just don't know who the adversary will be, so much that I don't even know if the adversary will simply be in the mirror.

It is. The natives in every Western nation (except for Israel, if you want to include it as part of the West) are reproducing below replacement fertility. It's been happening for decades now yet it literally cannot go on forever. We could easily rectify this, but we lack the will.

The MENA and sub-Saharan African invasion into Europe could be stopped with the sinking of a few ships full of 'refugees'. Instead we have European coast guards risking life and limb to help the invaders make their way in. Again, we lack the will.

Any way you slice it, robots will be a big part of our future. Dont be that guy in 1993 that viewed MS Win366 and declared personal computers wont have much of a need in our lives. Even now, NASA is well underway at creating robots that will build the infrastucture on Mars years before the first human arrives. google NASA Valkrye.No need to tell you middle class families will have robot maids/ servants..cleaning, preparing meals, keeping the elderly amused, tutoring the children.Then the overton window shifts. Sexbots will be high quality and abundant. The AI will be sufficient for men's needs. But they will be expensive. One reason why women wont buy them..except the most desperate. As there will still be enough male thirst so as to get the6's+ laid, just not worshipped. And of course, thirdly, women are holistic as opposed to visual regarding their sexuality...the robots will not have enough 'learned charisma' to compete with a good romance novel and vibrator.So for men near term, i could see sexbot whorehouses one could go to (affordable and offering variety). Entrepreneurs could even deliver/pickup them to/from customer's doors for weekend romps.Overall, women will be nicer/more willing to please men but it still wont address the problem of attraction. Female beauty incites male love and devotion. Lots of average looking guys will be stuck semi-satisfied with average looking women (think 30+ swpl couples).As a result, female sexbots will be rationalized by women as giving their men happiness to maintain their monogamous relationships. A win/win for both parties as the women get sex (enough sex), commitment, children, and finances. And a man gets what dc.sunset describes as the right path of a man and the variety of sexual partners like a high level alpha.

The Sexual Revolution of the 60s resulted in a group of haves and have nots for men. The have nots are increasingly dropping out of the dating pool. These days an unlimited porn library, video gaming, and other manchild vices (comic books, movies, etc.) keep men occupied. Sometimes for these men, it's just not worth it to get shot down by fatties, dangerhairs, etc. who believe they are entitled to banging hot guys. It doesn't help that thanks to Tinder, they can be a hot guy's lay for the night. There won't be anything more than that but yeah, undesirable young women can punch several notches above what they should be able to do.

I see sexbots as just an accelerant for the have nots to drop out. If sexbots are able to make it feel enough like the real thing then a guy who hasn't had much luck may just say "fuck it" and get a sex robot. If the robot feels good enough, then his effort in finding a real life girl drops considerably and now you have another guy who just fucks his sex robots and calls it good.

Historically there have been ways for the have nots to be removed from the dating pool, mostly as cannon fodder, the monastery, slaves, etc. In our modern era, it's sexbots and comic book movies.

Well put. Those are my sentiments with some additional clarity, thanks.

Random Dude,

I'm thinking the benefit will come more to betas, not to the omegas/incel crowd at the bottom of the male pecking order. Sexbots will allow the MGTOW types an enhancement in their lifestyles, but when it comes to family formation, well, we can't go lower than zero so that probably doesn't effect the overall numbers much.

The guys in the middle, who 50 years ago could find a nice girl in the 4-7 attractiveness range but who have more trouble doing so now because of female hypergamy (via things like tinder and big city atomization/anonymity) and also because of higher male standards (via porn and countless images of 9s and 10s everywhere in the virtual world) are the ones who probably stand to benefit the most.

I hope so, anyway. Those guys are what makes the Western world work.

Dan,

In 1994 the GSS asked if respondents had seen porn in the last year. The percentages among men by number of children who answered "yes":

0 -- 44.0%1 -- 33.3%2+ -- 23.1%

Sample size is only a couple hundred, but there is a pretty clear pattern that more porn = less fertility.

My guess is that sexbots won't ever be realistic enough to be much more satisfying than pornografy. Can't see robotics ever reproducing that emotional and physical high you get when a woman really gives herself to you willingly. I doubt they'll even rise to the level of human prostitutes in terms of desirability. At least prostitutes are real human beings with actual emotions.

Understandable sentiment. Like flying cars, there's been talk of them happening in the next X years for X*X years, and yet here we are.

Marco/Alliumnsk,

The prostitute comparison seems like an apt one in terms of the experience it's trying to stimulate (all 5 senses), and the economics of renting the bots makes it more affordable.

Otoh having to deal with the logistics might keep it from being worth the trouble--keeping the bot in the closet creates a big value in terms of convenience. And it's still not clear how something like this would be viewed by another partner in monogamous relationships.

Sexbots that are realistic enough to be worthwhile are still probably decades away but VR is right around the corner and functionally that's almost like a sexbot.

As for the idea that fertility will increase in a post sexbot world, I think it's just the opposite. Women don't really drop their standards unless they reorder their view of their own desirability. Black women have the lowest marriage rates in the US, and the reason they do is because there are far fewer "marriageable" black men than women. If women adjusted their view of "marriageable" they could be married at the same rates as white women. So I think the sexbot/VR revolution will exacerbate trends already in existence, not reverse any of them.

I opine that even the faked emotions of a prostitute will be more satisfying than anything a robot will ever be able to provide. The prostitute is stil flesh and blood, whereas the robot will always be just a soulless thing.

Won't this just speed up the religious inheriting the earth? They are the only ones having kids after all. Porn, sexual degeneracy, and soon, sex bots and AI will just continue to weed out of the gene pool those who refuse to prioritize family and kids.

Not an issue really if the First World nations adopt a hard immigration ban and seal their borders. It will accelerate the death of the West though if they don't, and then Africa's population bomb goes off.

Quite possibly. It will complete the transition of fertility correlating strongly with fornication in general to correlating with intentional procreation instead. And there's a lot of overlap between religiosity and intentional procreation.

A lot of guys really don't care so much about looks, even super alphas who literally have many thousands of 10's to choose from. Look at who Mark Zucerkberg and Bill Gates went for, for instance, well after they were rich. They went for brains.